SILVERBERG 

GOLDMAN& 

B IKO FF, t.t.P. J QJ:O)w\~wf{PL§{i • Sum 120 • 1101 30TH STREET, NW • WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 . 

. VOICE (202) 944-3300 • fACSIMILE (202) 944-3306 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

September 17, 2013 

VIAFEDEX 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building 

·suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

RECFI\tED 

SEP 1 8 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

(Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) 

Re: In the Matter of Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services 

FAA Docket: FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced case please find an original and one copy of a 

Proposed Scheduling/Discovery Plan being submitted by Airborne Maintenance and Engineering 

Services. 

Also enclosed is an additional copy of the Proposed Scheduling/Discovery Plan and a 

pre-addressed, postage paid envelope. Please date-stamp the additional copy and return it to our 

office in the enclosed envelope. 

Thank you for your assistance. Please call me at the telephone number listed above if 

you have any questions regarding this matter. 

. Very truly yours, 

Enclosures 

cc: The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq. 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, LLP 

Attorneys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 
In the matter of 

RECEI\.tED 

SEP 1 8 2013 

BEFORETHE . · 

u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONHEARING DOCKET 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

Case No. 2011S0290032 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES Administrative Law Judge 

J.E. Sullivan 

PROPOSED SCHEDULING/DISCOVERY PLAN 

Pursuant to paragraph 2) ofthe Order Setting Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, 

and Directing Rule 26(£) Planning and Submission, served July 23, 2013 in the above-referenced 

case, Respondent hereby submits that although the parties conferred in good faith we have been 

. unable to reach a joint agreement on scheduling. As counsel for AMES, I will be unavailable to 

work on this matter, even preliminary discovery matters, until the end of litigation I am currently 

handling pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia with a 

December 1 7, 2013 trial date. Prior to the trial date, there are summary judgment motion 

deadlines and briefing schedules to be observed throughout the months of October and 

November leading to the December trial. Further, counsel have moved in the U.S. District Court 

litigation to delay the discovery cutoff to October 9th and many depositions have been scheduled 

between now and then. Although I have assigned an associate to work with me on this FAA 

matter, I will not even be in a position to provide necessary supervision during the remainder of 

the year, unless my other case were to settle, which I judge to be unlikely. However, ifthe case 

were to settle I would be agreeable to commencing discovery in this case reasonably soon 

thereafter. 
Although AMES and the FAA are not far apart in the scheduling of the hearing for June 

or July 2014, FAA counsel seeks to commence discovery in October and to close discovery in 

January. This leaves several months before trial for the filing of pre-trial motions. I question if 

the gap between the close of discovery and the FAA suggested hearing date (even considering 

the filing of dispositive motions and time for Your Honor to consider the motions) is necessary 

since in under either proposed schedule the matter would be ready for hearing in June or July 

2014. 

Indeed, FAA counsel has indicated in his Proposed Scheduling/Discovery Plan that if 

discovery is not commenced until early 2014, then a September 2014 hearing would be 

appropriate suggesting that there is no concern on the part of the FAA regarding the availability 

of witnesses or the preservation of records, should discovery in this matter not start until2014. 

Counsel for AMES does not object to such a hearing date so the only question is when discovery 

should commence. 

Accordingly, Respondent proposes the following scheduling/discovery plan: 

January 7-Initial written discovery 

January 21-0bjections to written discovery requests 

February 6-Written discovery responses and opening ofperiod for depositions 

April24-Discovery cutoff 

May 23-Pretrial motions 

June 6-Reply to pretrial motions 

June 20-Responses to replies to pretrial motions 

July 23-Hearing (subject to Your Honor's schedule) 

2 
Under the circumstances, normally accorded consideration of the opposing counsel's case 

load warrants delay in discovery until early 2014. I, along with my Associate, Jeffrey Johnson 

will be prepared to take this matter up with Your Honor at the telephonic scheduling hearing 

scheduled for September 24, 2013. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. 

Attorneys for 

· AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

By: -----L-.o2""---""---~~~ A~L:t:::...._:__, 4----=-r---

Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 

L. Jeffre~ Johnson, Esq. 

1101 30t Street, N.W. 

Suite 120 

3 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3304 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 
• j I I' 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 1 ih day of September 2013, I caused a true copy of the 

foregoing Proposed Scheduling/Discovery Plan to be served: 

by FedEx overnight delivery (original and one copy) addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2W1 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

(Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) 

and by telecopier and First Class mail addressed to: 

The Hon. J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Fax: (404) 305-5223